Signature Flight Support: Have you read the fine print?

[VWGhiaBob]

Since I use Signature Flight Support in Palm Springs frequently, I decided to read the fine print I am signing every time on the contract. Then I talked to some attorneys. Whoa. If you use Signature, read it yourself. You may decide, as have I, to go elsewhere, or to at least not let them touch your plane (they usually tow mine to their hangar). The contract specifies:

* You must hold both General and Commercial insurance that covers them AND the airport. Does yours? I checked and mine doesn’t. My broker doesn’t even know if I can get such insurance. That means in the event of some losses, you have no insurance.

* You must “indemnify” and hold them “harmless” in certain circumstances (which aren’t all that uncommon). This means you personally may have to pay their legal fees (and again, it’s you personally, not your insurance).

* In the event that a third party brings a claim against Signature, YOUR coverage is primary, not theirs. As incredible as it seems, that’s what it says. AND your coverage likely will NOT cover you.

I have been in a bad habit of just signing contracts like this. In the current climate, consumer protections are eroding, and we can expect to see more and more of these. In a different era, such agreements were illegal and unenforceable.

So bottom line, read the fine print. If you choose to use Signature, do so with your eyes wide open! I am going to investigate Atlantic Aviation to see if they have a similar clause.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

Signature contract language is attached.

 

[Dana]

There needs to be a law stating that any contract not comprehensible to a person of average intelligence is null and void. That would also eliminate all those software license agreements that we all just click through...

 

[Rgbeard]

Wow. This is disturbing.

On the flip-side, my wife and I got in to El Paso a couple of nights ago, and parked with Atlantic there.

We didn't sign anything. I just gave them my name, tel#, fuel order, and that was that.

When we got back to our plane, I only signed a credit card receipt, as we were out the door.

 

[Lindberg]

Signature contract language is attached.

This doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.

 

[Briar Rabbit]

Since I use Signature Flight Support in Palm Springs frequently, I decided to read the fine print I am signing every time on the contract. Then I talked to some attorneys. Whoa. If you use Signature, read it yourself. You may decide, as have I, to go elsewhere, or to at least not let them touch your plane (they usually tow mine to their hangar). The contract specifies:

* You must hold both General and Commercial insurance that covers them AND the airport. Does yours? I checked and mine doesn’t. My broker doesn’t even know if I can get such insurance. That means in the event of some losses, you have no insurance.

* You must “indemnify” and hold them “harmless” in certain circumstances (which aren’t all that uncommon). This means you personally may have to pay their legal fees (and again, it’s you personally, not your insurance).

* In the event that a third party brings a claim against Signature, YOUR coverage is primary, not theirs. As incredible as it seems, that’s what it says. AND your coverage likely will NOT cover you.

I have been in a bad habit of just signing contracts like this. In the current climate, consumer protections are eroding, and we can expect to see more and more of these. In a different era, such agreements were illegal and unenforceable.

So bottom line, read the fine print. If you choose to use Signature, do so with your eyes wide open! I am going to investigate Atlantic Aviation to see if they have a similar clause.

I flew to Lincoln on business and was directed to a tie down by their lineman. I was there for about 8 hours but not overnight. I tied the airplane down in their directed spot and it was a bit gusty so I set the brakes too. The FBO took it upon themselves to move the airplane and towed it to a different location - brakes were still set during the tow (I was not there) and they did a poor job of hooking up the ropes. As I recall this was a Signature FBO. I am usually a pretty patient person but this got under my skin and I let the head lineman know that any idiot should check to see if the brakes are set before dragging an airplane around with a 10.000 pound tug and that I was never going to use their FBO again.

 

[Clip4]

I flew to Lincoln on business and was directed to a tie down by their lineman. I was there for about 8 hours but not overnight. I tied the airplane down in their directed spot and it was a bit gusty so I set the brakes too. The FBO took it upon themselves to move the airplane and towed it to a different location - brakes were still set during the tow (I was not there) and they did a poor job of hooking up the ropes. As I recall this was a Signature FBO. I am usually a pretty patient person but this got under my skin and I let the head lineman know that any idiot should check to see if the brakes are set before dragging an airplane around with a 10.000 pound tug and that I was never going to use their FBO again.

If an FBO needs to move your plane they assume you know proper post flight procedures. The proper procedure is not to leave the parking brake set and chock the wheels.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

This doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me.

If you are comfortable indemnifying them, carry the required polices, and if your insurance is comfortable serving as primary in the event something happens, I agree. In my case, my insurance company says “no way”, and are checking to see if they are even willing to provide this coverage at extra cost. All this to use an FBO? To each his or her own.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Strikethrough that which you cannot agree to, sign.

 

[Briar Rabbit]

If an FBO needs to move your plane they assume you know proper post flight procedures. The proper procedure is not to leave the parking brake set and chock the wheels.

According to who? As a pilot with 50 years experience I have never seen that written anywhere. I have been asked a few times to not apply brakes and have complied. But it is the pilots responsibility if the pilot ties the ropes to configure the gust locks, chocks & brakes as he sees appropriate. If the less experienced line man wants me to alter my procedures on my airplane it is his responsibility to inform me and discuss it.

 

[Lindberg]

If you are comfortable indemnifying them, carry the required polices, and if your insurance is comfortable serving as primary in the event something happens, I agree. In my case, my insurance company says “no way”, and are checking to see if they are even willing to provide this coverage at extra cost. All this to use an FBO? To each his or her own.

You've spoken to your attorney and should follow his advice. Other attorneys might think it's not terribly unreasonable and might advise their clients differently. But not on the internet of course.

And since you are concerned about the requirement of a CGL policy for your operations, I take it that you are a commercial operator, which might make your situation different from a private pilot.

 

[James331]

I used to go to a few where lots of the working pilots who would pass through would be asked to sign something like that, they’d just say “company says I can’t sign agreements” no one seemed to care. That said PSP was a little stuck up as I recall.

 

[cowman]

I'm not a lawyer so maybe there's a lawyer here who can explain this.

It is my understanding that I signed a contract with my insurance company saying that if I cause an accident/damage with my plane they will pay my liability up to a certain amount and if my plane is damaged/destroyed they will either pay to fix it or pay the hull coverage amount I put on it. Yes, I know there are lots of *s in all that but that's the basic idea for the purposes here.

I don't see how anything signature or any other FBO could have me sign would alter that relationship between me and my insurance co. If I cause a problem and get sued aren't they supposed to step in regardless of what the FBO wrote on their paperwork? If my plane gets damaged isn't my insurance co responsible to take care of me and then go after the FBO if they feel there was negligence? Also as I understand it just writing "hold harmless" statements on a contract doesn't do much if the matter ends up in court anyway. Am I wrong?

 

[Clip4]

According to who? As a pilot with 50 years experience I have never seen that written anywhere. I have been asked a few times to not apply brakes and have complied. But it is the pilots responsibility if the pilot ties the ropes to configure the gust locks, chocks & brakes as he sees appropriate. If the less experienced line man wants me to alter my procedures on my airplane it is his responsibility to inform me and discuss it.

You may have 50 years experience, but you have done it wrong all those years. There is zero reason to leave a parking brake set on a parked airplane with wheel chocks in place.

https://studentpilotnews.com/2014/05/14/fbo-speak/
http://www.kingairmagazine.com/article/3350/
https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/braking-tactics/

 

[Briar Rabbit]

Well I guess we will just have to disagree. If an airplane is parked on a public ramp and the pilot retains the keys and did the tie down procedures the FBO should not be moving the airplane unless requested to do so. If there is damage I believe the courts would back up the owner. Just as automobiles parked in a commercial lot - if the owner maintains possession of the keys the lot owner does not move it. If the car lot owner has possession of the keys he has the responsibility to protect it and move it as necessary. If it is in an FBO's hangar or if the pilot has surrendered the keys to the FBO or requested the FBO to move it that is different. Other wise if the owner is directed to a tie down on a public ramp and the owner ties it down and locks it the FBO is opening a legal can of worms if he unties it and moves it and damages incur other than by an act of God. If you have a written evidence to the contrary please share it. Otherwise it may be just your opinion or a regional thing but not at most of the airports I fly to. And again I think if litigation ensued the FBO will be on very shaky grounds.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Strikethrough that which you cannot agree to, sign.

That’s what I always did

 

[Clip4]

Well I guess we will just have to disagree. If an airplane is parked on a public ramp and the pilot retains the keys and did the tie down procedures the FBO should not be moving the airplane unless requested to do so. If there is damage I believe the courts would back up the owner. Just as automobiles parked in a commercial lot - if the owner maintains possession of the keys the lot owner does not move it. If the car lot owner has possession of the keys he has the responsibility to protect it and move it as necessary. If it is in an FBO's hangar or if the pilot has surrendered the keys to the FBO or requested the FBO to move it that is different. Other wise if the owner is directed to a tie down on a public ramp and the owner ties it down and locks it the FBO is opening a legal can of worms if he unties it and moves it and damages incur other than by an act of God. If you have a written evidence to the contrary please share it. Otherwise it may be just your opinion or a regional thing but not at most of the airports I fly to. And again I think if litigation ensued the FBO will be on very shaky grounds.

If you parked in any area the FBO rents from the airport, it is not public.

You will also find many recommendations that tell you not to leave the parking brake set for maintenance reasons

Would you prevail in a lawsuit? Probably, but it is a lot easier to be smart and not have you plane down for repair than have a good attorney.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

You've spoken to your attorney and should follow his advice. Other attorneys might think it's not terribly unreasonable and might advise their clients differently. But not on the internet of course.

And since you are concerned about the requirement of a CGL policy for your operations, I take it that you are a commercial operator, which might make your situation different from a private pilot.

No I’m not commercial. I’m reacting to the requirement to carry a commercial policy...even though I’m not commercial.

 

[NordicDave]

Signature contract language is attached.

THANK YOU for sharing this. Yikes.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

I'm not a lawyer so maybe there's a lawyer here who can explain this.

It is my understanding that I signed a contract with my insurance company saying that if I cause an accident/damage with my plane they will pay my liability up to a certain amount and if my plane is damaged/destroyed they will either pay to fix it or pay the hull coverage amount I put on it. Yes, I know there are lots of *s in all that but that's the basic idea for the purposes here.

I don't see how anything signature or any other FBO could have me sign would alter that relationship between me and my insurance co. If I cause a problem and get sued aren't they supposed to step in regardless of what the FBO wrote on their paperwork? If my plane gets damaged isn't my insurance co responsible to take care of me and then go after the FBO if they feel there was negligence? Also as I understand it just writing "hold harmless" statements on a contract doesn't do much if the matter ends up in court anyway. Am I wrong?

According to my broker, most policies, including mine, will not cover Signature’s onerous requirements. But just to be sure, he’s confirming. Since the answer will almost certainly be “no”, he’s also asking how much it could cost to upgrade the coverage. If I get any more insights, I’ll post them.

 

[Clip4]

Strikethrough that which you cannot agree to, sign.

Nobody ever reads a signature, refused to sign works.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

If you parked in any area the FBO rents from the airport, it is not public.

You will also find many recommendations that tell you not to leave the parking brake set for maintenance reasons

Would you prevail in a lawsuit? Probably, but it is a lot easier to be smart and not have you plane down for repair than have a good attorney.

My instructors have always told me not to set the parking brake for more than a few minutes...an hour at most, because it’s bad for the brake pads. Right or wrong, I only use chalks and tie-downs, even in windy conditions.

 

[cowman]

According to my broker, most policies, including mine, will not cover Signature’s onerous requirements. But just to be sure, he’s confirming. Since the answer will almost certainly be “no”, he’s also asking how much it could cost to upgrade the coverage. If I get any more insights, I’ll post them.

Yeah I get that they have spelled out requirements and most insurance may not or does not meet those. That would to me be a reason for them to refuse service (you don't meet our insurance requirements we won't fuel you/park you/etc).

However what I'm saying here is I don't see how of any of that negates my insurance company's obligation to me to cover the aircraft for liability or damage. Eg: I fly in, signature tows my airplane into another airplane and causes damage. Maybe Signature can try to say "well you didn't meet our requirements so we won't pay" but your insurance company should still cover you because that's your agreement with them. I don't see how a contract with another party alters your insurance's obligation to YOU. That's the part that doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[rene86mx]

Most corporate pilots use this. Print one and attach either side to the window
Problem solved

 

[Clip4]

According to my broker, most policies, including mine, will not cover Signature’s onerous requirements. But just to be sure, he’s confirming. Since the answer will almost certainly be “no”, he’s also asking how much it could cost to upgrade the coverage. If I get any more insights, I’ll post them.

This is a real pickle. The agreement does not prevent the owner from suing, it prevents your insurance from suing. Which I believe makes your insurance void because you are prohibited from waiving your Insurance’s right to recover loses.

Yeah I get that they have spelled out requirements and most insurance may not or does not meet those. That would to me be a reason for them to refuse service (you don't meet our insurance requirements we won't fuel you/park you/etc).

However what I'm saying here is I don't see how of any of that negates my insurance company's obligation to me to cover the aircraft for liability or damage. Eg: I fly in, signature tows my airplane into another airplane and causes damage. Maybe Signature can try to say "well you didn't meet our requirements so we won't pay" but your insurance company should still cover you because that's your agreement with them. I don't see how a contract with another party alters your insurance's obligation to YOU. That's the part that doesn't make any sense to me.

You will find language similar to this in your policy,

If we pay under this Policy, we have all rights of recovery of an insured person. That insured person must do all that is needed to help us exercise these rights. An insured person may do nothing to take away these rights.

 

[Briar Rabbit]

If you parked in any area the FBO rents from the airport, it is not public.

You will also find many recommendations that tell you not to leave the parking brake set for maintenance reasons

Would you prevail in a lawsuit? Probably, but it is a lot easier to be smart and not have you plane down for repair than have a good attorney.

I will respect your opinion. And I appreciate the info from Sporty's. When I am parking and the winds are gusty I will use my parking brake to insure stability of the airframe while tying down. Should I have then removed the parking brake - ok probably. And as an A&P I am well aware of the limitations of hydraulic airplane parking brakes. Even if it is a rented ramp space I still believe if the owner secures the airplane for an 8 hour visit the FBO should not be untying and towing the airplane without the owners express permission. One of my concerns is that frequently linemen do a lousy job of tying down. They either do a terrible job with the knots, a couple of half hitches spaced a foot apart to me is not acceptable. Or they do not put enough tension on the ropes and the airplane rocks & moves in the wind. And I deplore chains which allow the airplane to move and then abruptly bang into a hard stop. So my strong preference is when I secure my bird it stays there until I return!

 

[cowman]

This is a real pickle. The agreement does not prevent the owner from suing, it prevents your insurance from suing. Which I believe makes your insurance void because you are prohibited from waiving your Insurance’s right to recover loses.


You will find language similar to this in your policy,

If we pay under this Policy, we have all rights of recovery of an insured person. That insured person must do all that is needed to help us exercise these rights. An insured person may do nothing to take away these rights.

I follow the logic. Seems like then it comes down to whether your insurance company is willing to fight for you on your behalf.

I can't imagine a good lawyer would have a lot of trouble shooting down a piece of boilerplate fine print on a document that just gets thrust casually at a pilot coming into an FBO like that. I don't know what the legal term for it is but I know the principal exists that nobody can just trick you into signing your rights away and have it stand up in court.

Of course, nobody ever wants to have to deal with all the problems to come with escalating something to the level of having to hire a lawyer so.... all arguments aside this is one more good reason to avoid signature.

 

[Bill Watson]

I will respect your opinion. And I appreciate the info from Sporty's. When I am parking and the winds are gusty I will use my parking brake to insure stability of the airframe while tying down. Should I have then removed the parking brake - ok probably. And as an A&P I am well aware of the limitations of hydraulic airplane parking brakes. Even if it is a rented ramp space I still believe if the owner secures the airplane for an 8 hour visit the FBO should not be untying and towing the airplane without the owners express permission. One of my concerns is that frequently linemen do a lousy job of tying down. They either do a terrible job with the knots, a couple of half hitches spaced a foot apart to me is not acceptable. Or they do not put enough tension on the ropes and the airplane rocks & moves in the wind. And I deplore chains which allow the airplane to move and then abruptly bang into a hard stop. So my strong preference is when I secure my bird it stays there until I return!

The only way to insure your plane won’t be moved is to park a tailwheeled airplane (or a glider).

In my 50 years of flying what I’ve learned, beyond what I wrote above, is to never set my parking brake on any FBO’s ramp if I leave my plane for more than 30 seconds.

The only time that bit me in the ass was on the British Virgin Islands where I thought I was being ‘handled’ by an FBO but was actually on my own. I stupidly left my plane unsecured and it was blown around the ramp by for almost a week without anyone taking any action what so ever. No damage but... I still never set my brakes on US FBO ramps. It is assumed, even if tied down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Briar Rabbit]

The only way to insure your plane won’t be moved is to park a tailwheeled airplane (or a glider).

In my 50 years of flying what I’ve learned, beyond what I wrote above, is to never set my parking brake on any FBO’s ramp if I leave my plane for more than 30 seconds.

The only time that bit me in the ass was on the British Virgin Islands where I thought I was being ‘handled’ by an FBO but was actually on my own. I stupidly left my plane unsecured and it was blown around the ramp by for almost a week without anyone taking any action what so ever. No damage but... I still never set my brakes on US FBO ramps. It is assumed, even if tied down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Your comments probably have a lot to do with my opinion. Most of my first thousand hours were in a taildragger I owned.

Good discussion, thanks to Clip4 and others for the input! Things have changed considerably since we started flying in 1969.

 

[N1120A]

Carrier has a specific meaning, and Part 91 private flights don't fall into it.

 

[Rgbeard]

Strikethrough that which you cannot agree to, sign.

That means their legal team would need to review before their acceptance.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Since I use Signature Flight Support in Palm Springs frequently, I decided to read the fine print I am signing every time on the contract. Then I talked to some attorneys. Whoa. If you use Signature, read it yourself. You may decide, as have I, to go elsewhere, or to at least not let them touch your plane (they usually tow mine to their hangar). The contract specifies:

* You must hold both General and Commercial insurance that covers them AND the airport. Does yours? I checked and mine doesn’t. My broker doesn’t even know if I can get such insurance. That means in the event of some losses, you have no insurance.

* You must “indemnify” and hold them “harmless” in certain circumstances (which aren’t all that uncommon). This means you personally may have to pay their legal fees (and again, it’s you personally, not your insurance).

* In the event that a third party brings a claim against Signature, YOUR coverage is primary, not theirs. As incredible as it seems, that’s what it says. AND your coverage likely will NOT cover you.

I have been in a bad habit of just signing contracts like this. In the current climate, consumer protections are eroding, and we can expect to see more and more of these. In a different era, such agreements were illegal and unenforceable.

So bottom line, read the fine print. If you choose to use Signature, do so with your eyes wide open! I am going to investigate Atlantic Aviation to see if they have a similar clause.

I doubt that such agreements were ever 'illegal and unenforceable'. Heck, read the back of a baseball ticket: your kid gets brain damage from a flying bat, tough luck.

 

[Lindberg]

No I’m not commercial. I’m reacting to the requirement to carry a commercial policy...even though I’m not commercial.

I don't read such a requirement in the snippet you posted.

 

[Lindberg]

According to my broker, most policies, including mine, will not cover Signature’s onerous requirements. But just to be sure, he’s confirming. Since the answer will almost certainly be “no”, he’s also asking how much it could cost to upgrade the coverage. If I get any more insights, I’ll post them.

If your broker believes this agreement is onerous, I'm certain he hasn't read many commercial waivers or indemnity agreements. Signature isn't even limiting its liability to just gross negligence, which would be enforceable in most places.

 

[murphey]

Interesting...Civil Air Patrol policy is the moment we leave the keys with the airport/shop/whatever, it's now their 100% responsibility. If we are stopping for lunch, whatever, then we keep the keys and it's the mission pilot's personal responsibility. Sometimes it's difficult to get a squadron commander (I'm in a senior flying squadron) to accept responsiblity for 3 C182's and a C172 - over $1M liability, altho it's really CAP's problem, not ours.

 

[flyingron]

More important question is whether Signature invokes those provisions in ALL cases or just in those cases when the customer is a PIA? Most businesses tend to do the right thing in my experience.

Signature has never been constrained to the "right thing" in my experience.

And yes, I've had ham-fisted line guys bend my nose gear by turning it past the limits. I know which FBO it occurred at because there's only one I'd visited in the past year where I didn't tie down the aircraft myself and find it where I left it when I returned. Still I could prove nothing and of course, the FBO denied any responsibility.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

That means their legal team would need to review before their acceptance.

I have yet to hear that from counter staff.
Think the lovely lady behind that counter would rather lock horns with you, or sell you gas, send you on your way?

 

[N1120A]

I doubt that such agreements were ever 'illegal and unenforceable'. Heck, read the back of a baseball ticket: your kid gets brain damage from a flying bat, tough luck.

Teams have been successfully sued for projectile injuries, and deaths. It is the reason they are FINALLY extending netting down the baselines.

 

[Palmpilot]

If an FBO needs to move your plane they assume you know proper post flight procedures. The proper procedure is not to leave the parking brake set and chock the wheels.

Reminds me of a sign posted on the control panel of a TV station I once worked at: "Do not assume anything."

 

[Bill Watson]

Your comments probably have a lot to do with my opinion. Most of my first thousand hours were in a taildragger I owned.

Yes, I flew a taildragger Maule around for 1700 hours with lots of XC airport visits. As various landing, tie down and infrastructure fees were being added to bills, avoiding those fees became a bit of game for me in my taildragger. Since you dare not leave a light taildragger ‘loose’ and unattended on the ramp, I would insist on tying it down myself before leaving the airport. At many FBOs that would be an exceptional situation and the front desk would often ‘miss’ checking me in. Or if they checked me in, they would often ‘miss’ me checking out:
“What is your tail number so we can pull you out?”
“It’s a taildragger, your guys can’t really move it, I’ll just go get it myself”.
“Need anything else?”
“No (I filled at the SS)”.
Then I’d jump in and fly off before a bill would be generated. That worked more often than not.

It’s still fun picking up a passenger at a major airport or making an unplanned stop for weather and seeing how often you can get away without paying ramp fees and such by never asking how much anything is or simply never asking for a bill.

Now, If I need fuel and want to play the game, I fill-up and pay for the fuel on the way in, then smile and thank everyone on the way out.

(BTW, I consider those extra fees completely legitimate and fair... it’s just a game.)



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro